Skip to content


Kerala Varmah Valia Rajah Avargal of Cherakkal Kovilagam and ors. Vs. Ondan Ramunni and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in7Ind.Cas.696
AppellantKerala Varmah Valia Rajah Avargal of Cherakkal Kovilagam and ors.
RespondentOndan Ramunni and ors.
Excerpt:
malabar compensation for tenants improvements act (mad. i of 1887), section 7 - customary rate--special contract--contract to receive compensation at customary rate does not exclude operation of the act. - .....for improvements at the ordinary rate, and the only question is whether that rate is to be the rate prevailing at the time compensation has to be paid or that prevailing at some former date.3. we have no doubt that the landlord is bound to pay the rate prevailing at the date the compensation is paid.4. that rate is now governed by madras act i of 1887 and we answer the question referred to the full bench in the affirmative. the compensation must, of course, be limited to improvements recognized as such in section 3 of the act.5. the appeal again came on for final hearing before sir arthur collins, c.j., and parker, j., who delivered the following.6. the vakil for the appellants admits that as the opinion of the full bench is against him, the appeal must be dismissed. but as the full.....
Judgment:

1. Exhibit A provides for the planting of four kinds of fruit trees for which compensation at the ordinary rate is to be paid on the surrender of the paramba. There is no special contract such as is contemplated in Section 7, Madras Act I of 1887, which would exempt the agreement from the operation of the Act. The stipulation is apparently for the benefit of the landlord. Nothing is said about other improvements, but the right of the tenant to make customary improvements is not excluded.

2. The landlord is, therefore, bound to pay compensation for improvements at the ordinary rate, and the only question is whether that rate is to be the rate prevailing at the time compensation has to be paid or that prevailing at some former date.

3. We have no doubt that the landlord is bound to pay the rate prevailing at the date the compensation is paid.

4. That rate is now governed by Madras Act I of 1887 and we answer the question referred to the Full Bench in the affirmative. The compensation must, of course, be limited to improvements recognized as such in Section 3 of the Act.

5. The appeal again came on for final hearing before Sir Arthur Collins, C.J., and Parker, J., who delivered the following.

6. The Vakil for the appellants admits that as the opinion of the Full Bench is against him, the appeal must be dismissed. But as the Full Bench overruled some previous decisions, we shall direct that each party bear his own costs in this appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //